hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Headers/max_align.c:1 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s +// expected-no-diagnostics ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > > We may need to explicitly specify C11. It also seems that we should XFAIL > > Windows targets. > Does this need an explicit `-triple=???` ? I don't think this test is target-specific, I read the specifications (as opposed to the implementations) of `max_align_t` and `__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__` as saying that `_Alignof(max_align_t)` should be the same as `__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__`. Granted, it seems `max_align_t` on Windows does not match `__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__`. So, a custom `malloc` implementation querying on one might not align sufficiently based on the other. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59048/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59048 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
